The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism

Some of the strongest differences between traditional dispensationalism and the newer progressive dispensational movement can be found in the area of hermeneutics and overall interpretive method. These dissimilarities begin with progressive dispensationalism’s refusal to see literal interpretation (understood as grammatical-historical interpretation) as a major issue in debate between dispensationalism and covenant theology, the two major approaches to theology within the evangelical world. Progressives usually voice the opinion that all sides are attempting to do grammatical-historical interpretation and that differences lie more in the area of how one links from one passage to another within the Bible. On the other hand, traditionalists argue that even though integration of passages across authors and history within the Bible highlights much of the debate, one still should be concerned about the maintenance of literal interpretation throughout the process of deriving one’s theological statements.

Secondly, in studying the Bible, progressive dispensationalists tend to follow scholarly developments about hermeneutics within evangelicalism and Christendom more closely than traditionalists. While this is a matter of degree since both sides interact with developing ideas across the board, an example of this difference would be the greater reliance upon the interpretive notions of Hans-Georg Gadamer by progressives. Within the last 40 years, the linguistic debate has placed the more subjective Gadamer over against the more objective E. D. Hirsch (especially the earlier Hirsch) when it comes to reading written texts. Some traditionalists bemoan the fact that this linguistic debate has even entered into biblical studies within evangelicalism. Beyond that, there is the legitimate concern that meaning is founded clearly in the text of Scripture and not in another arena such as tradition or the interpreter’s imagination.1 Regardless, most traditionalists, while acknowledging subjective elements of interpretation such as the existence of the reader’s presuppositions, believe that any form of personal bias or traditionbound thinking on the part of the interpreter can be overcome by studious attention to places in interpretation where presuppositions surface more clearly. In addition, traditionalists reject the hermeneutical direction that some progressives are going when they appear to diminish the objective certainty one can have when interpreting prophecy in the Bible.2

Thirdly, in the integration of texts from Old to New Testament, progressives emphasize the New Testament more than traditionalists do when interpreting fulfillments of Old Testamen predictions. Both progressives and traditionalists have affirmed that the New Testament can elaborate or enhance an Old Testament promise but cannot change or annul such a promise.3 However, traditionalists care to frame the discussion abou fulfillment with the Old Testament’s antecedent revelation in mind while progressives tend to highlight the New Testament text that describes fulfillment. Some progressives think that traditionalists are non-literal in the New Testament and read the Old Testament too much into the New. Traditionalists fear that progressives are moving toward reading the New back into the Old. Such an approach can easily cause a blurring of distinctions such as those between Israel and the Church. That some progressives have blurred the distinction seems evident to traditionalists in light of the fact that some progressive writers have labeled the Church as the “new Israel.”4

Finally, progressive dispensationalists generally follow what has been called the Jewish Background and Apostolic School of Interpretation.5 What this means is that extra-biblical Jewish literature from the Second Temple period plays a greater role in interpreting the biblical text for the progressive than it does for the traditionalist. Traditionalists are more skeptical of such an approach since Jesus often rejected the traditions expressed in this particular body of rabbinic and other Jewish literature. While a recovery of Jewish backgrounds to the Bible is refreshing at one level, one must be careful not to overstate the value of Second Temple literature.

The primary way that such literature is used by progressives is the examples it gives for uses of the Old Testament. That is, the hermeneutical approaches found in the rabbis are studied and used as potential paradigms for interpreting the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Sometimes midrashic techniques such as verbal analogy are used to make or reinforce theological connections. For example, the similarity of the terms “raise up” in history as a descendant found in 2 Samuel 7:12 and “raise up” in resurrection as found in Acts 13:33-34 help to reinforce the concept of an inauguration at the ascension of the kingdom promised in the Davidic Covenant established in 2 Samuel 7.6

In addition, some progressives have attempted to find analogies in the Second Temple literature to New Testament uses of the Old for the purpose of establishing a biblical basis for hermeneutical approaches. The circularity of this approach— seeking a formula for reading the text by finding the formula in the text (but what hermeneutical rules do you use when you are reading to find your hermeneutical rules?)—keeps such thinking from being taken seriously by many traditional dispensationalists.

In the end, the hermeneutical differences can be highlighted most by the fact that traditionalists remain the champions of literal interpretation.

--------------------------
1. For a survey from a traditional dispensational point of view of some of the linguistic perspectives and how they impact interpretation, see Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 54-69.
2. See Brent Sandy, Ploughshares and Pruning Hooks (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2002).
3. Mike Stallard, “Literal Interpretation, Theological Method, and the Essence of Dispensationalism” The Journal of Ministry and Theology 1 (Spring 1997):5-36; Darrell Bock, “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (July-Sept. 1985): 209-23.
4. David L. Turner, “The New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:1-22:5: Consummation of a Biblical Continuum” in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992), 288.
5. Herb W. Bateman, IV, ed., Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 41.
6. For a discussion of the progressive view of these difficult passages, see Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, eds., Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993), 176-77.

Mike Stallard (Ph.D.) is Professor of Systematic Theology and Director of the Ph.D. program at BBS. He is an experienced pastor who has led several church plants and churches. You can email Dr. Stallard at mstallard@bbc.edu.

return to the Summer 2007 Paraklesis